Keeping citizens in the loop

URGENT – OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court):RE: Filing of an Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’

12 July 2011

OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court)

I, Penelope Mary Bright, (aka Penny Bright) give notice that I will (again), on Wednesday 13 July 2011,before 5pm, apply at the Auckland High Court for orders:

“1.1 Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in 18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.

1.2 Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in- the New Zealand public or world at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1

The ‘legislative basis’ upon which I am relying, in order to file this application, lies in CIV 2010 – 404 – 8559 Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer , Judgment of MacKenzie and Simon France JJ, 4 July 2011.

I have already attempted to ‘to apply to the Court’ for the ‘suppression order’ of Winkelmann J to be removed.

As you know, I attempted to file this ‘Application’ with yourself, on Thursday 7 July 2011, at the Auckland High Court.

I first attempted to file this ‘Application’ under the ‘Civil’ jurisdiction, but was told that ‘Civil’ jurisdiction – didn’t have the jurisdiction, and to take it to the ‘Criminal’ jurisdiction.

My ‘Application’ was passed over to you as ‘Manager’ but you refused to accept this document for filing, claiming that there was no ‘legislative basis’ for myself as a ‘non-party’ to apply for such an order.

(I do understand that on Thursday 7 July 2011, at the time you refused to accept my ‘Application’ for filing,you were probably unaware of this above-mentioned Judgment, and the part of this ruling [41] which is directly pertinent to this matter.)

However, you did accept a copy of my ‘Application’, for the Registrar of the Auckland High Court (Tony Mortimer) to ‘review’ – so you do already have a copy.

On Friday 8 July 2011, after reading carefully the above-mentioned judgment, which makes clear provision for ‘non-parties’ such as myself to ‘apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal’, I rang and left messages on both your ‘land line’ and mobile phone, in order to bring this very important information to your urgent attention.

I stated that there must be some basis in law for a non-party such as myself to apply for the removal of this suppression order – or these Judges wouldn’t have said that it could be done?

I put it to you, that once you have seen for yourself this JudgmentCIV 2010 – 404 – 8559
Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer , Judgment of MacKenzie and Simon France JJ 4 July 2011, you can no longer claim any lawful basis for continuing to refuse to accept the filing of my ‘APPLICATION FOR ORDER’ .

What is also arguably patently ridiculous in this situation is that this latest judgment, which is not ‘suppressed’, contains details of the judgment of Winkelmann J which was suppressed.

Vince Siemer is now facing imprisonment for ‘contempt’ for ‘disseminating details of Judge Winkelmann’s decision – which I have too have disseminated. I too am upholding the public’s lawful right to know Judge’s decisions and their reasons for those decisions.

Am I too going to face imprisonment for ‘contempt’ of court?

What ‘LAW’ have I, or Vince Siemer ever broken?

If there is anyone whom you would expect to follow the the ‘Law’ – it it is surely the Judge?

Following are what I believe to be key grounds supporting this ‘Application’ for orders ‘revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in 18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342) known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions” ‘.

“[4] There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.

4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:

138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings

…….

(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.

5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.

6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.

7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.

8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.

9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.

11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2

12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.

13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.

14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.”

_______________________________________________________________________________
I look forward to your assistance in ‘facilitating access to justice’ and accepting for filing the ‘Application’ which you have already received.

Please confirm that the ‘Civil’ jurisdiction of the Auckland High Court is the proper body with which to file this ‘Application’. It would greatly assist me, if this could be done before 12 noon Wednesday 13 July 2011, in order to assist in the facilitation of access to justice in this arguably very significant matter of public interest.

I am attempting to ‘do things in a proper way’, and respectfully look forward to your guidance and assistance in expediting the initiating of these proceedings.

WORDING OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ‘APPLICATION FOR ORDER’ WHICH HAS NOT (YET) BEEN ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
_________________________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-

BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT

ApplicantAND THE QUEEN

Respondent

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.

This document notifies you that –

1.The applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, will on ________________ 2011 apply to the court for orders:

1.1 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about Her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.

1.2 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in – the New Zealand public or word at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1

ON THE GROUNDS:

2. It has not been established in the body of the judgment that the Judge had, in fact, made such a suppression order. The suppression wording was apparently added later by a member of the court staff.

3. There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal

(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.

[Bold and emphasis added]

5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.

6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.

7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because

it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.

8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.

9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.

10. A court “Minute” is an administrative direction of the court which is not publicly reported and can only affect actual parties to the litigation. In law, it cannot be used to contravene the legal right of the public’s right to know, let alone be used to imprison NZ citizens. Such Minutes are not disseminated to the public at large. This underscores the patent injustice of such a judicial tool.

If anyone should have been obliged to follow ‘lawful due process’, in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice, then it should have been the Judge herself.

11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2

12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.

13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.

14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.

About

Through my involvement with this group I have become a Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater and Auckland regional governance matters.

I have also been publicly acknowledged as an “Anti-corruption campaigner”.
I have started my blog so that those who are not on the email can access the information .

I was an Auckland Mayoral candidate – standing to help STOP THE $UPERCITY – the corporate takeover of the Auckland region, which has been forced upon the public majority without our lawful consent through a ‘binding poll’.

I stood in the Botany by-election as an independent candidate, on an anti-corruption / pro-transparency, anti-privatisation/asset sale platform.

I believe that is is high time that NZ got our ‘House’ in order, and established the legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption, and ensure genuine transparency and accountability in local and central government and within the judiciary.

I am currently standing in the Auckland Council Howick Ward by-election on the following ‘platform’:

NO RATE$ INCREASES!

CUT OUT THE CONSULTANTS AND THE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

OPEN THE BOOKS!

GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE CONTRACTORS; SCOPE, TERM AND VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS!

BRING BACK COUNCIL WORKS DEPARTMENTS!

PROVIDE COUNCIL SERVICES ‘IN-HOUSE’ AND CUT OUT ALL THOSE PRIVATE ‘PIGGIES -IN -THE -MIDDLE’!

If private sector provision is SO ‘efficient’ – then how come over the last 20 years rates have gone up – not down?)